October 3, 2016 By Joseph P. Farrell

Recently, as readers here are probably aware, both houses of the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly to override President Obama's veto of the measure allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia, a measure which the White House strongly opposed, and with it, the (out)house of Saud. The significance of the vote is that it is one of the rare examples in recent history when significant majorities of "both" parties were in agreement, as this CNN article makes clear:

Congress overrides Obama's veto of 9/11 bill

There were various reasons advanced for this, among them the White House's explanation that such a bill would open the possibility for foreign nationals to sue the USSA for the loss of their loved ones, in Iraq, for example, and conceivably open the door for possible criminal prosecutions. We'll get back to that in a moment. For its part, the (out)house of Saud issued its own statements of displeasure and strongly hinted that if such a measure were passed, there would be retaliation in the form of them dumping a significant amount of American debt. And implicit in that threat was the idea that "we won't buy any more, either."

But in today's high octane speculation, I have to wonder if the "reasons" being advanced by the White House and the Out House are all there is to this, or if, in fact, they constitute a smokescreen and misdirection. It would take a truly blind and irrational person not to realize that the Saudi role in 9/11 became well-known - even in the official narrative - almost immediately, and the 9/11 truth movement quickly zeroed in on this factor and subjected it to a detailed analysis, an analysis that quickly revealed that the entire event occurred during concurrent drills of the US military structure, with many of those drills mimicking the actual event itself. In other words, the whole thing had to have had at least some assistance and planning from within the US command structure. And that, of course, implies a deeper layer than just the Out House. And by now, the connections between certain American political dynasties in Texas and Arkansas and the Out House are well known. Indeed, one might look at the current meltdown in the Middle East, which Washington has engineered, as being something engineered also in the Out House with Washington apparently marching to the tune of drums from the Out House, or vice versa, or both marching to someone else's drums.

So why the concern about the bill? I strongly suspect that the real fear here is that during any such legal actions, be they from American families whose lived ones were lost in 9/11 or from foreign nationals who suffered losses because of resultant American action, that the process of discovery in such court cases could lead to the baring in a court of law of "uncomfortable facts" leading to those deeper layers, and hence, invalidating the whole official narrative in a very direct and significant way. In this respect, recall only the lawsuits between the old right-wing magazine Spotlight and Hunt, whom Spotlight had implicated as being involved in the JFK assassination. Hunt sued, and celebrated JFK assassination researcher and attorney Mark Lane defended Spotlight, and won, and during the course of the trial, was able to lay bare the the whole Warren Commission narrative as the huge disinfo op that it really was. Think, too, of the unsuccessful case of New Orleans district attorney and later judge Jim Garrison in the late 1960s, when he brought Clay Shaw to trial for involvement in the JFK assassination. While that trial was unsuccessful, again, Garrison was able to expose aspects of the official narrative in a court of law, including the first public viewing of the celebrated Zapruder film. Jurors from that trial who were later interviewed about their decision, indicated that Garrison had failed to make his case, but by the same token, they did express doubts about the official narrative and were convinced, precisely because they viewed the famous film, that a conspiracy was involved. Garrison had proved conspiracy, but simply failed to tie Shaw to it.. The result was that a significant piece of evidence - the Zapruder film itself - was pried out of the vaults of secrecy to become a public fixture of all challenges to the official narrative.

These types of considerations are, I strongly suspect, what is really behind the White House's and Out House's protestations over this bill: deeper layers are being protected. In this respect, it's worth recalling once again that former US Senator Bob Graham of Florida stated on various American news shows that the now declassified 28 page document implicated foreign governments as being involved in 911: governments, plural, not singular, and yet, in the documents we've seen, it appears that only Saudi Arabia is implicated. And that is a subtle, a disturbing, change in the narrative itself.

See you on the flip side...